An interesting article appeared in the 3/26/2000 Gainesville Sun, addressing the
issue of reform in the animal research program at the University of Florida. It saddened
me that the larger issue was not addressed -- the very concept of animal research itself.

A position adopted and promoted by the animal research industry is: "Better
to sacrifice a dog to save a child." This ridiculous view is predicated on the false
assumption that we have no other options. In reality, there are better ways to study human
disease than trying to pretend that the results of testing members of a different species
can be applied to our own species, particularly when the test subjects are imprisoned,
isolated, and fed an unnatural diet, before and during the actual experiments. Dozens of
books by doctors, former researchers, and other scientists have challenged the efficacy,
practicality and morality of experimenting on non human animals. Among them are the
classics by Peter Singer ("Animal Liberation"), Tom Regan ("The Case for
Animal Rights") and Hans Ruesch (Slaughter of the Innocent", "The Naked
Empress" and "1,000 Doctors Against Vivisection"). Two recent efforts,
"Animal Experimentation: A Harvest of Shame" by Dr. Moneim A. Faladi, and
"Sacred Cows and Golden Geese" by Dr. Ray Greek, update and expand on the
earlier works.

Even if animal experimentation does benefit humans (which it does occasionally,
rather by accident), does that make it morally right? Do the 100,000,000 animals that die
annually in American labs deserve no voice in the matter? From a truly objective point of
view, is it any more ethical to "sacrifice" non human animals to benefit humans,
than to "sacrifice" humans to benefit the other animals?

At least 100,000 Americans die annually from drugs that were deemed safe after
experiments on non humans. Hundreds of drugs have been recalled after their side effects
caused untold suffering for humans. Of course, when doctors and pharmaceutical companies
are sued for such mistakes, they can say "These drugs (or these procedures) were
tested on animals, so its not our fault." And some judges (who too often have
financial ties to the medical / pharmaceutical industry) rule in favor of the defendants,
because of potential loss to themselves.

Rationalization for animal experimentation is founded on the premise that humans
are Gods ":chosen darlings", and that the pain and suffering of no one
else really matters. Steven J. Gould (who spoke at The University of Florida in April) and
many others have challenged the myth that humans are the culmination of evolution, or have
a God-given "right" to exploit, alter, enslave, torture and kill, any (or
perhaps all) of the other inhabitants of this planet to satisfy our curiosity, gluttony
and need to profit. An open-minded look at animal experimentation reveals that:

1) Animal Research has not been the great boon to human health that the medical
and pharmaceutical industries claim. Its history is a chronicle of illogical
theories, distorted facts, ghastly errors and incredible waste. The case has been made
convincingly that such research has done more harm than good for humans as well as the
other animals.

2) Research on non human animals is done largely for the profit motive (corporate
funding), and there are valid and practical alternatives that offer far greater benefits
to all concerned.

3) The rationale for all animal experimentation is based on human misconceptions
about human needs and the nature of animals and their experience of pleasure and pain.

4) All animals have an inherent right to life, liberty and a natural experience of
life according to their species. Even if vivisection does result in benefits for humans,
there is no logical argument that denies consideration of these basic animal rights.

Experimentation on humans without their consent is considered unethical and
immoral. This is not because we are intelligent, build churches, or are the dominant
species at the moment. It is wrong because such research causes pain and suffering. Only
the most callous and egoistic claim that pain and suffering is experienced only by humans.
This attitude has made humans the "unnatural" enemy to all other living things.
We pollute our environment and create our own disease by choosing unhealthful diets and
lifestyles, and then make innocent animals pay for our sins in after-the-fact attempts to
understand our mistakes. Of course there is little glory or profit in preventing disease;
better to wait until disease is advanced and come in with a heroic (and profitable) cure.

A University of Florida professor made a statement in 1998 that all medical
schools do animal research because they have no other choice. In reality, at least seventy
American medical schools, at least claim not to have animal labs. Research on non human
animals is being phased out for practical as well as ethical reasons. The prestigious
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (Washington, DC) boasts a membership of over
5,000 physicians and 100,000 laypersons who oppose research on live animals. In 1983, a
former vivisectionist told an audience of 4,000 outside the University of Wisconsin that
"the day will come when we will look back upon the 400 years of animal
experimentation as the Dark Ages of medical research."